Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

My Lords, I have hitherto taken no part in debates on the provisions of the Bill, and I have been full of admiration for my noble friends on the Front Bench who have been dealing with this almighty Bill. In the past few days, however, I have been in contact with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and the BioIndustry Association, who have expressed their grave concern that the animal rights terrorists—I am afraid I call them terrorists because of their tactics—seem always to be outflanking the legislation passed by Parliament and the measures taken by the authorities to curb their activities. This is not the time to get involved in what I might call Home Office matters, but it has always seemed to me quite astonishing that we have had laws on the statute book, certainly for more than a century—originally in the context of trade union legislation—that preclude watching, besetting, intimidation and harassment, but that none of this, it seems, can be used against animal rights terrorists. However, that matter is not before the House this afternoon. I, too, was struck by the articles in The Times this morning in the wake of the campaign by, I believe, a so-far anonymous group to intimidate the shareholders of GlaxoSmithKline, our leading pharmaceutical company, which has a long and distinguished record of new drugs and treatments to fight diseases. GSK has put out a press release. I will not read it all, but will make just one point. It says:"““The letter campaign, which is designed to target GSK’s continued use of Huntingdon Life Sciences . . . is a typical tactic used by extremist groups and is intended to cause fear and intimidation””." I find it appalling that, in the 21st century, major industries of enormous importance to this country and our economy have to put out such releases to try to defend their shareholders from the attentions of these terrorists. Indeed, it is extraordinary that the authorities have begun to wake up to the nature of the campaign only in the past year or two. It is also astonishing that, to the public, robbing a grave appeared to be much the most serious action that these people have taken. That action occasioned considerable police activity to find the remains of the lady whose grave was robbed. I had thought that my noble friend’s amendments answered the question asked in The Times this morning as to what is meant by ““proper use””, but the debate and the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, echoed an exchange of e-mails that I have been having with the ABPI only this afternoon; namely, that this needs to be thought through further to ensure that there is an adequate defence against the improper publication and improper use of shareholders’ registers. Companies must know where they stand when they receive requests for these details and where they suspect that the person making the request may be contemplating improper use. Further sanctions are needed; they are not yet in the Bill. I hope that, between now and Third Reading, or perhaps even when the Bill reaches another place, the Government may be able to produce legislation that effectively addresses the problem. At the moment, the Bill clearly does not do so. Indeed, it leaves it undefined. As the spokesman quoted by The Times this morning makes clear, what is meant by proper use? My noble friend’s amendment tries to deal with that question and refers specifically to harassment and so on. But there could well be other improper uses. I used those words when I talked to the ABPI this morning. This needs to be carefully thought through. This must not be legislation on the hoof. This is a desperately serious matter for the industries concerned. I know that the Minister now accepts that and has been at the forefront of efforts to try to curb it. Nevertheless, as we have seen in the past day or two, it still continues and is a source of considerable anxiety. I leave the House with only one more thought: if businesses are driven abroad, and if research of the kind carried out by GlaxoSmithKline eventually has to be done in other countries, what is absolutely certain is that the care of any animals that may be used in the research or in testing will be grossly inferior to anything that is enforced by our Government here in Britain. We have the tightest regulation. I ask terrorists whether that is what they want, or have they now become so imbued by the viciousness of their campaign that that does not worry them at all? I find this a very disturbing feature of our society at present. My noble friend has tabled an amendment that goes at least part of the way to dealing with this problem, and I have tabled a few amendments on the disclosure of directors’ private addresses, which clearly must be addressed. The Government have gone a long way to meeting the industry’s case on that, but the shareholder issue is equally important. The shareholders of the company that built the laboratory in Oxford were targeted, which knocked the company’s share prices for a burton because so many of the shareholders felt they had to sell. This is economic damage of enormous importance which, as I said, achieves nothing for the purposes of the people who are concerned about the welfare of animals. I hope that the Government will now treat this with extreme seriousness and will perhaps move at Third Reading to tighten up the legislation.